NASA Wants Permanent Manned Lunar Outposts

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
This caught my eye:

Dale said she will travel extensively next year to these nations and others to see how they might participate. One project she mentioned as attractive to NASA and possibly others is the deployment of an array of telescopes on the dark side of the moon to see far into the universe.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. There's a dark side of the moon? When did this begin?
 
I am so stoked about this.

"Overman to Moon Base 1.....Come in Moon Base 1..."

"Moon Base 1 here Overman"

"Moon Base 1, Look out for Unicron!!!!!"


But seriously, this is the awesomest thing and has made my day. I am so happy that permenant space stations on other worlds will be happening in my lifetime. 2024.
 
BPSCG said:
This caught my eye:

Emphasis mine. There's a dark side of the moon? When did this begin?
Click to expand...
Of course there is a dark side of the moon, and I’m quite sure it began shortly after the moon was formed. There is a dark side of the Earth as well; it would be whichever side is opposite the Sun. The problem is that the dark side on either doesn’t seem very stationary relative to the surface. Maybe it will be a mobile array? :D
 
Overman said:
I am so happy that permenant space stations on other worlds will be happening in my lifetime. 2024.
Click to expand...
Don't get your hopes up. My money says that this is not happening. I'd bet 10:1 on it not happening by 2040.
 
BPSCG said:
That would make moon-to-earth data transmission pretty complicated in the absence of an array of lunosynchronous satellites...
Click to expand...

They'd be worth it. Still, would a lunar base to operate a telescope with associated lunar orbit communication satellites be cheaper than a telescope at Lagrange 2, relative to the moon and the earth? It would have the same advantage of being shielded from the light reflected by the earth as a telescope built on the moon's surface.

Edit: to clarify I meant Earth-Moon Lagrange points, not Sun-Earth Lagrange points.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
They'd be worth it. Still, would a lunar base to operate a telescope with associated lunar orbit communication satellites be cheaper than a telescope at Lagrange 2, relative to the moon and the earth? It would have the same advantage of being shielded from the light reflected by the earth as a telescope built on the moon's surface.

Edit: to clarify I meant Earth-Moon Lagrange points, not Sun-Earth Lagrange points.
Click to expand...
(Had to look up Lagrange points, but I think I understand what it would be in an earth/moon system.)

Complexities start to multiply here. A ground-based telescope would be easier to service, but would require the aforementioned satellites. A Hubble-type telescope wouldn't be easy to service - it would be on the far side of the moon, after all - but it also wouldn't require a permanent outpost.

Frankly, I'm dubious that this will happen in my lifetime, and I certainly have realistic hope of being around in 2024. When Kennedy said we should go to the moon, we weren't routinely running multi-billion dollar budget deficits, and people were genuinely afraid the USSR would get there first and establish a military presence, so there was a sense of genuine urgency combined with the belief that we could afford to do it.

Ferdinand and Isabella didn't have to cope with all that, else the "we have enough problems here in Spain without spending all our pesos on an adventure to find another route to India..." types would have delayed the discovery of North America until about 1957.

I recently read Robert A. Heinlein's "future history" stories, including The Man Who Sold the Moon, which proposed a free-market approach to lunar colonization. Fun reading, even if it didn't work out that way.
 
Far side of the moon is less misleading. I think the ol' bad astronomer did something about this some time ago.
 
BPSCG said:
(Had to look up Lagrange points, but I think I understand what it would be in an earth/moon system.)

Complexities start to multiply here. A ground-based telescope would be easier to service, but would require the aforementioned satellites. A Hubble-type telescope wouldn't be easy to service - it would be on the far side of the moon, after all - but it also wouldn't require a permanent outpost.

Frankly, I'm dubious that this will happen in my lifetime, and I certainly have realistic hope of being around in 2024. When Kennedy said we should go to the moon, we weren't routinely running multi-billion dollar budget deficits, and people were genuinely afraid the USSR would get there first and establish a military presence, so there was a sense of genuine urgency combined with the belief that we could afford to do it.

Ferdinand and Isabella didn't have to cope with all that, else the "we have enough problems here in Spain without spending all our pesos on an adventure to find another route to India..." types would have delayed the discovery of North America until about 1957.

I recently read Robert A. Heinlein's "future history" stories, including The Man Who Sold the Moon, which proposed a free-market approach to lunar colonization. Fun reading, even if it didn't work out that way.
Click to expand...

Actually, there currently is a satalite telescope in Lagrange 1. It observes the Sun.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html

There's already plans to put a satalite into orbit in the Lagrange point Between the Sun and Earth in Lagrange 2 in only a few years. Lagrange 1 & 2 are great real estate for telescopes. Lagrange 3's not useful because it's obstructed, and Lagrange 4 & 5 have clouds of debris associated with them.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I rather like the sound of "Come over to the Dark Side".
Click to expand...

Come to the Dark Side, we have craters.

So do we.

We have more and they're cooler looking, 'cause all of yours are covered by maria.

No they're not, we have some left.

Lame ones.
 
I believe they are talking about a RADIO telescope. The moon offers an environment where a huge radio telescope array could be built. Placing it on the far side of the moon shields it from all the radio noise generated on Earth.

While I am generally opposed to manned space exploration, this is one project that actually makes sense.
 
patnray said:
I believe they are talking about a RADIO telescope. The moon offers an environment where a huge radio telescope array could be built. Placing it on the far side of the moon shields it from all the radio noise generated on Earth.

While I am generally opposed to manned space exploration, this is one project that actually makes sense.
Click to expand...

Ooooh. That would rock.
 
The thing about any NASA project is to take the proposed date of any space exploration project to commence and add 20-30 years. Repeat ad infinitum.

Come on! I was born in 1974 and as a kid I heard that we'd have lunar colonies by the late 80s to early 90s. I've since come to expect disappointment.
 
Nevertheless, I find this news to be quite exciting. Especially the fact that it may happen in my lifetime.

Wonder who will be the first to play Pink Floyd's album up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom